asked the Minister for Agriculture if, in an effort to expedite the disease eradication programme, he will sanction the payment of the normal reactor grants for animals proved inconclusive in tests and subsequently proved to have TB when killed in the factory; and if he will make a statement on this situation.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Disease Eradication.
8.
In the type of case referred to by the Deputy——
We cannot hear the Minister.
Will Members leaving the House do so silently so that the Minister may be heard.
In the type of case referred to by the Deputy, my Department are prepared to make an ex gratia payment not exceeding the appropriate reactor grant. The amount of such payment depends in each instance on the particular circumstances of the case.
Will the Minister indicate the number of cases over the past year or years in which the full reactor grant payment was made to farmers in this position? Does the Minister think it fair that a farmer who has an inconclusive animal and who on the advice of Department officials or veterinary surgeons sends that animal to the factory where it is discovered that it has TB lesions, finds his herd locked up and is not given the full payment? Will the Minister clarify if the minimum amount of £50 per animal is paid in most cases?
In 1984 the number of animals in respect of which the basic reactor grant was paid was 151. This is a good point to raise in the House because very often there is no penalty in the case of lesions. This often applies to what were supposed to be clean animals but when the farmer gets the return and the factory indicates that the price is being cut because the animals had lesions, that farmer is entitled to apply for his reactor grant.
In the case of an inconclusive or a reactive animal the farmer is being forced to dispose of the animal although there might be a few more years of life in the animal either for beef or milk. The farmer should be compensated for the loss incurred. The decision to sell the animal has been forced upon him.
There should be no loss to the farmer for this animal if the animal kills out in the ordinary way. Normally in the case of an inconclusive animal where lesions show up——
The point is that if this is a milk cow it may yet have a number of years of life for production. If the animal is sold off because it is inconclusive or reactive there would be a loss to the farmer and in the case of an animal that would not have reached maturity for beef——
That is another point.
Would the Minister admit that they should be compensated?
My opinion is irrelevant but the fact is that he is not compensated.
What did you say?
My opinion is irrelevant.
Is the Minister saying that a farmer should not be compensated because he has had to sell an animal which has not reached maturity because of a disease problem? Is that a fact?
Deputy O'Keeffe, that is a totally different question seeking to introduce a totally different policy to include losses on trading and so on. Question No. 9.
(Limerick West): Will the Minister indicate that he will review the approach of the Department to this?
As I said yesterday, I am prepared to review anything with Members of this House. I made it clear at Question Time yesterday that on disease issues we had plotted our course for the next three years. The Deputy suggested that we might have some latitude with regard to partial depopulation. One can find good reasons to do a lot of other things as well but the fact is that the funding has been set out and has been earmarked to do a certain job and there is little latitude within the present scheme.
Question No. 9. A final supplementary on this question.
The Minister indicated in his initial reply to this question that 151 animals in 1984 got the basic reactor grant. Could the Minister say how many animals did not qualify for the grant and who got the minimum ex gratia payment of £50 and who did not get any ex gratia payment? Does the Minister realise that an animal proving inconclusive initially, going down to the factory and proving to have TB lesions means that the farmers' herd is locked up and he is subject to the same standards and criteria as if initially the animal proved to be a reactor?
Where the factory notifies in the case of lesions and where there is a cut in price, the grant is paid. The total number of animals that went in with lesions in 1984 was 2,273.
They did not receive the grant?
No, that was the total, less 151 who received the grant.
There is a major discrepancy there.
There is, but in many cases there may have been no loss of income.
I have called the next question.
9.
asked the Minister for Agriculture if the milk ring test for brucellosis is still in existence.
Yes. This test continues to play a very useful part in the eradication scheme.
Does this test still exist, because from the Minister's answer it appears that it does not.
The test is in existence. I answered the question.
10.
(Limerick West) asked the Minister for Agriculture if he will make a statement on the progress of the brucellosis eradication scheme.
At the end of March 1985 only 546 herds out of a total of 192,000 were restricted because of brucellosis and I expect that we will see this disease fully eradicated within a few years.
(Limerick West): Will the Minister indicate the number of animals involved in those herds?
I have not the number of animals but I have more information that might help. At present less than 600 herds are restricted because of brucellosis. This represents a disease prevalence in herds of 0.28 per cent of herds. Only five years ago the number of herds locked up was 14,000. Of the herds currently restricted a sizeable number are not actually infected with brucellosis but are locked up on veterinary advice as a precaution.
(Limerick West): I presume it is for a temporary period.
That is right. The advantages of declaring a brucellosis free area extended to the Twenty-six Counties in May last year is that it conferred on all counties the status of being virtually free of brucellosis and that it means that cattle from any county can be exported to the UK subject to the fulfillment of the relevant export conditions.
Now that there are smaller numbers will the Minister ensure that the veterinary office in ACOT concentrate on the areas where there was a fall down? Yesterday the Minister mentioned lateral spread, but there could be other problems in these areas. Now is a good opportunity to find out the reasons for this.
I will heed any advice I get from Deputy Leonard.
11.
asked the Minister for Agriculture if he will make special compensation available to the farmers in Mein, Knocknagoshel, County Kerry, where there has been a serious outbreak of bovine TB of 257 in-calf cows in the past 12 months as his Department's inspectors to date have been unable to trace the cause of this serious outbreak.
The outbreak in question resulted from the rapid spread of infection from a residue of TB in the area. Spread was facilitated by inadequate boundary fencing, intermingling of herds and the use of common water supplies. The outbreak has now been brought under control and the payment of special compensation to herdowners in the area is not envisaged.
In view of the fact that there was a serious outbreak of TB in this area where 257 in-calf cows went down with TB, special compensation should be made available to farmers. Some of the inspectors in the Department in Tralee could not come up with a reason why those cows came down with TB. The Minister suggests a water supply but the feeling in Tralee is that the water supply was not the cause of the spread and special compensation should be made available to the farmers especially in view of the fact that there are very small farmers in the area owning only ten and 15 cows each.
The local vet insisted that it was really a lateral spread from one farm to another. It is now under control and the good news is that quite a number of the restricted herds will be cleared shortly. Where there was depopulation the farmers will get a depopulation grant of £100 per animal up to £6,000 and they will also get a restocking grant of £400 per animal. That is the best I can do.
12.
asked the Minister for Agriculture if a special compensation or a supplementary income could be paid to any farmer who loses a certain percentage of his herd through disease.
With effect from October last, changes were made in the terms of the depopulation fund scheme and a new stock replacement scheme was introduced to improve the assistance available to herdowners whose herds are depleted through bovine tuberculosis or brucellosis. Further changes in the levels of compensation to farmers under the disease eradication programme are not envisaged.
Would the Minister of State agree that the present level of compensation is totally inadequate and that many farmers who have disease problems and have been depopulated or partly depopulated have suffered serious financial loss because of inadequate compensation paid by the Department?
Compensation has always been inadequate. Compensation for disease is never adequate and I never said it was. I will run briefly through the existing compensation provisions: cows and in-calf heifers non-pedigree, £225; pedigree, £285; other cattle under 182 kg, non-pedigree, £210; pedigree, £250, other cattle over 182 kg non-pedigree, £85; pedigree, £125. The depopulation fund, £100 per qualifying animal subject to a maximum of £6,000.
That depopulation would include animals which were removed from the herd in the previous 12 months. The stock replacement scheme as announced recently is intended to provide further relief for herd owners who have to depopulate because of heavy disease infection. Payment is at the rate of £40 in respect of each animal on which a depopulation payment has already been made. The payment will be £60 per head where a herd owner who was in dairying opts for an alternative type of animal husbandry — for instance sheep or tillage.
Similar situations to that prevailing in Kerry in the previous question exist in other parts of the country. Can the Minister of State indicate whether a farmer who loses a small number of animals on one test and subsequently loses a small number of animals on every three, four, five or six subsequent tests, and eventually loses half or all his herd, will be paid right from the very start from the first test either the depopulation or the restocking grants?
It goes back only to the previous 12 months.
How long is it since the increases were made in the compensation in these cases?
The most recent increases are from 11 February 1985.
I think the Minister of State will agree with me as a practising farmer that those levels of compensation he has read out are totally inadequate and that any farmer who has disease problems will face ruin if those rates are not reviewed and updated.
Can the Minister of State indicate whether the increase in grants as announced on 11 February will have retrospective effect to 1984?
The depopulation scheme refers back to the previous 12 months and the stocking grant is £ for £ at the rate of £40 up to 60 animals because the restocking scheme applies only to those animals that are qualified for depopulation.
Will that cover 1984?
Those two go back retrospectively.
Will the Minister of State agree that the last two regulations made would indicate that the Department prefer to see a complete depopulation, a clearing of the complete stock? That seems to be the thinking now rather than a closed up herd and retest and retest. The rate of grants and the general conditions of both schemes——
That is a comment on information and not a question.
(Interruption.)
It is the Department policy on this. Is it their policy for complete depopulation?
It was always a policy of the Department. I have discussed this with some of our top veterinary people who would consider even 25 cows down out of a herd of 90 as being near enough to depopulation. The reason is that intermingling and so on would tend to decimate the herd in no time.
13.
asked the Minister for Agriculture when it is estimated that the Irish cattle herd will be declared free of bovine TB.
Given the complexity of the bovine TB problem, I would not wish to speculate as to when the national herd will be free of the disease. However, I am satisfied that the coherent and co-ordinated approach now adopted under the Government's national plan will provide a real basis for success in our efforts to eradicate this disease.
Does the Minister of State accept that many isolated areas have had outbreaks of bovine TB in recent times? It is very serious for the farmers who have the problem and it is very costly to the country. It is difficult to indicate when bovine TB might be eradicated completely. Have the Department come up with any solution to the problem of serious outbreaks in isolated areas all over the country?
As I have said during the last few days, it is difficult to pinpoint the cause of an outbreak. One thing seems to be quite clear. Where an outbreak takes place in a region as distinct from a farm it would appear to be lateral spread of disease. The practice of selling off animals to traders who very often do not deliver on time to factories and often let diseased animals out to pasture and all that sort of thing has contributed to the spread of bovine TB. One could say that we are all at fault here, that nobody is taking it seriously enough. If we are to get rid of this disease that will mean an enthusiastic campaign by the Department, the veterinary surgeons and the farmers. I hope that, with the drive to get rid of TB, farmers in areas such as referred to by the Deputy will get together as a group and admit that they have a problem and then go about taking every precaution to solve it.
Does the Minister of State feel that we will be able to declare the Irish cattle herd free of bovine TB?
It is a crystal ball type of thing.
(Limerick West): The Minister of State is good at that.
I am optimistic that we can, with extra effort all round, bring it to tolerable levels.
Can we be clear as to what exactly we are talking about when we talk about disease eradication or in this case the bovine TB eradication scheme? What are we saying is an acceptable level to be declared free? Let us not cod ourselves. Are we going on incidence figures from the Department or prevalence figures which we should be getting?
The present prevalence figure is 2.77 per cent of the herd. That is not an acceptable figure to us.
Is it the incidence figure?
It is the current figure.
Is it the incidence figure?
Yes.
What is the prevalence figure? Perhaps that is an unfair question because it is not issued by the Department.
A separate question can deal with that.
We cannot talk about making the Irish cattle herd free of bovine TB until we understand the present position.
Deputy Doyle, I do not think Standing Orders permit you to talk about it on the question as down. If that were permitted the whole question of the disease could be discussed and we could be here for three weeks.
What do we mean by "free" and what figures are we taking as the basis for our calculations?
(Interruptions.)
I will give an idea. At the end of 1984-85 a total of 5,314 herds were restricted because of bovine TB.
What percentage is that?
This represents a disease prevalence of 2.77 per cent.
Would it be possible to ensure that the pockets of tuberculosis which have come to light over the last year or two will be the first areas to be tackled under the new scheme?
That does not arise on this question.
(Interruptions.)
14.
asked the Minister for Agriculture the total amount paid to the veterinary profession under disease eradication schemes for each of the last five years.
As the reply is in the form of a tabular statement I propose to circulate it in the Official Report.
The following is the statement:
Fees paid to Veterinary Surgeons
|
Year |
Total |
|
(£ million) |
|
|
1980 |
8.410 |
|
1981 |
10.290 |
|
1982 |
9.479 |
|
1983 |
10.652 |
|
1984 |
8.324 |
15.
(Limerick West) asked the Minister for Agriculture if there are any plans in his Department for the computerisation of the cattle disease schemes and for the recording of those schemes.
Plans are now at an advanced stage for the installation of computer facilities at all district veterinary offices. This will replace the limited centralised system in operation since 1978.
(Limerick West): First, when is it likely that computerisation will be completed? Second, will the farmers be involved in the issuing of their own movement permits, as applies in Northern Ireland?
It is proposed that there will be a micro computer in every district veterinary office linked to a central computer.
(Limerick West): When?
We have asked for tenders and got 21 submissions which are at present being evaluated in consultation with the Department of the Public Service.
(Limerick West): My second question asked about the issuing of movement permits. How will they be issued when computerisation takes place? In order to cut down costs is there a possibility that the farmers will issue their own movement permits? This is working very satisfactorily in Northern Ireland.
This is something I will be prepared to look at, but I could not comment on it now.
(Limerick West): Can the Minister give the information about the amount of the tenders?
I do not have that figure.
On the question of movement permits, is the Minister aware of the most recent letter from the Department to the district veterinary offices allowing veterinary practitioners to issue movement permits and this is causing great difficulty with the agricultural officers? Does he envisage that this will cause further difficulty——
That does not arise under this question. Question No. 16.
16.
asked the Minister for Agriculture the origin of the leptospirosis disease which has wiped out many herds; and the amount of compensation paid.
Veterinary opinion is that leptospirosis may have been endemic here for some time but that it was hitherto masked by the prevalence of brucellosis. With brucellosis now almost eradicated more cases of leptospirosis are being diagnosed. I am advised that the disease is amenable to veterinary treatment and the import of a vaccine has in fact been licensed.
There is no information available to my Department to show that herds have been wiped out by leptospirosis and no compensation has been paid.
Would the Minister be prepared, by order, to make this a notifiable disease? Is he aware that this disease can have an effect on humans as well as on livestock? This disease is very serious because it affects first time calvers more than any other breeding animal.
I am aware that leptospirosis has been confirmed in a number of herds in the south, in Cork in particular, and the disease can be treated by using appropriate drugs. The more serious aspect of the disease is that it causes abortions. There is no evidence to suggest that herds have been wiped out.
Would the Minister make it a notifiable disease?
I do not propose to make it a notifiable disease.
Obviously from his answer, the Minister realises the seriousness of leptospirosis and the effects it is having on animal breeding.
I am also aware that it can be controlled.
17.
asked the Minister for Agriculture the number of pleuropneumonia cases in pigs that have been notified to his Department; the action he proposes to take to help to compensate the farmers whose herds have been affected by the disease.
Thirteen cases of pleuropneumonia in pigs have been brought to the attention of my Department since 1981, but only one case involved serious financial loss. The resources of the Department's veterinary research laboratories are available to herdowners for diagnostic and advisory purposes, but there are no funds at the Department's disposal out of which herdowners could be compensated for losses due to this disease.
Is the Minister negotiating with a herd owner with a view to paying compensation?
No such negotiations are taking place.
There are ongoing negotiations between one pig breeder I know and the Department and with a farming organisation and the Department.
On 29 November 1983 a particular farmer called to our office to explain the financial difficulties he experienced following the pig health problem. The pig health problems of that farm involved a variety of diseases — bowel oedema, Glassers disease, meningitis, Atrophic Rhinitis and pleuropneumonia. On 18 January 1984 a representative of the IFA pig committee also called to the office to inquire about financial aid for this family; we also had written representations from a Senator. It was explained that there were no funds available to the Department from which compensation might be paid.
Am I right in saying that in spite of all the disease complications the Minister mentioned, pleuropneumonia was openly identified and recognised by the veterinary profession and the State laboratory——
The Deputy is giving information, not looking for it.
With regard to pleuropneumonia, since 1981 we have very few cases of mortality. There is a vaccine available and it is understood that where it is used, it is used with success.
But it is not in the national interest not to use a vaccine——
We cannot have an argument at Question Time.
(Limerick West): Would the Minister consider introducing a compensation scheme to offset the losses to farmers and help to speedily eliminate this disease?
I have no such proposals. In the case of cattle it can be much more serious. It is a class A disease under which the Minister may pay compensation.